[blurryvision]

Finally took her into the dealership to get some things fixed, most notably my power window issues which they are fixing.

One thing they are driving me nuts about though is the abnormal rear tire wear I am experiencing. Even the person who took my car said it looked like I had some toe issues. Get the car back later that day (they had to order the parts for the windows so I take it back later in the week) and they give me the alignment report claiming that everything is within specs as follows:

Rear: Left Actual Specified Range
Camber -1.5° -2.2° -0.7°
Toe 0.26° -0.01° 0.39

Rear: Right Actual Specified Range
Camber -1.9° -2.2° -0.7°
Toe 0.07° -0.01° 0.39°

Thrust Angle - 0.10°

Because everything is "within specs" they wont do anything about it, even though the rear is chewing tires. So do I just find joe-schmo alignment shop and tell em what I want or do I have to suck it up and replace tires every 15k miles..

 

[sailor]

The schmo who'll adjust it is better than the Dealer who won't.

Look for the left to get close to 0.10 to match the right at a smaller angle than it's at now. Both sides near that should work. Steering should be off with that thrust angle BTW, with left not matching right fairly close the tail hangs to one side going straight.

 

[blurryvision]

You think dogtracking is a possibility?

 

[sailor]

That's what their numbers say is happening.

I had the same when mine was purchased used from a Dealer, just the opposite sides. The new tires installed started feathering in back & I adjusted the side toed in to bring it closer to the other side (less toe in) - problem solved.

You're showing one toed in significantly, and the other just less than the typical recommendation given here. Uneven = dogtracking. Wheel would be slightly turned right on yours (IF the front is absolutely perfectly aligned) while running straight.

 

[blurryvision]

Ok. Thank you for the advice. I'll see if they'll do anything about it.

 

[sailor]

The specified range they posted is the widest I've seen posted here, would love the see the current "Official" numbers.

Early models had a wide range specified, along with the forthcoming tire wear complaints. Changed to a smaller variation allowed for the later ones, with fewer problems reported. Don't know the official for MkIII unfortunately.

Enthusiast members here like closer numbers than are "allowed" for general consumption. Getting it close enough to work & making up for differences by constant tire rotations seems to be the 'normal" solution.

 

[blurryvision]

I would totally understand if they were wearing due to the obvious camber, that is easily fixed.
Most likely end up taking it to the dealer, get the toe put where I want it, lower the car, get adjustable arms for camber, have it set again and rotate em like a religion.
Then I'd be happy.

 

[sailor]

Camber is obvious to the eyeball, but as I saw confirmed in many threads (Suspension section) when I first joined in '08 that isn't the cause of odd/excessive tire wear when 2* or less.

Radial Tires of normal width/height don't ride on the corner with that much camber angle (unlike old bias ply tires) but the scrubbing from more toe in than necessary noticeably affects wear.

Camber at the rear helps the cornering grip there, better to keep it than try to dial it out as doing so won't help the wear issue anyways. Many concentrate on what they can easily eyeball, missing the real issue back there.